Ronnie

Absolutely, those are fantastic little bits of detail, but they're a little different to your complaint that in some views Castle Town wasn't 'intricately modeled in 3D'

I was more impressed that the designers allowed us the freedom to sail anywhere, and all that entailed in terms of open-ended gameplay, exploration and a lack of linearity. The technical specs of being able to see detail in the background was a nice touch, but that's about it. If the game had been on the N64 and there were loading times every so often, it wouldn't have changed the fact that Nintendo gave us a huge world to explore at our own pace. That's what I want from Zelda, vision and clever design, not more polygons. So what? Neither was the one in Ocarina of Time and that's heralded as one of the best games of all time. Technical specs shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, Zelda has far more to worry about than being able to see an accurate 3D representation of the main town (as an example). Sony and Microsoft care about pumping out the most incredible graphics humanly possible... and little else, not Nintendo. Yes the bump to HD will create a stunning looking Zelda, but unless they fix the problems unrelated to graphics the series will continue to slide.

1. No I'm not comparing them. I didn't think it was hard to understand... I'm saying that HD and motion controls are two aspects to a game over and above the gameplay itself. They enhance the experience, but they aren't what makes the game special. Or at least they shouldn't be. 2. No they're not functionally the same in the slightest. Most of those areas were connected in one great landmass that you could travel from one end to the other. Skyward Sword was a glorified level select. You pick the area you want to play on next. Want to go to a different level? Go back to the level select, and pick the next one. Which also had the unwelcome effect of extreme linearity. I can't understand how you can compare TP and SS. If you want to compare the world of Skyward Sword with another Zelda game, feel free to do so with Spirit Tracks, another disconnected level select.

Don't get me started on that. Biggest let-down ever. I was expecting us to not know when we were in a dungeon and the overworld to actually act and behave like a dungeon. It was nothing like that. Maaybe in some parts of the desert region where it was more like an obstacle course than anything else, but that's about it. IMO. Snowpeak mansion in TP should have been what they were aiming for, not what we ended up with. When I say daring I mean things like setting a game-wide time limit on you before a moon crashes into a bleak, dark, nightmarish world, all whilst transforming into the re-embodiment of three deceased creatures. Or having an ocean flood Hyrule and being forced to navigate using the wind and a sailboat, all painted in a hugely controversial (but timeless and beautiful) art style. I don't mean have three themed regions that you can't travel between and can only access via a fairly basic hub world. One to one swordplay could have gone wrong, I'll give you that, but it's hardly on par with some of the bigger decisions Nintendo have made in the recent past. Or, forget Epona and have us travelling up and down as and when we need to, all whilst having a nice big overworld on the surface to explore as and when we want. Nintendo are quite used to the dual world mechanic by now and this would have shown it off in a new and interesting way. The horribly detached nature of the DS Zelda games, where each playable area is reached via on-rails navigation, is basically recreated with SS. Three playable areas only reachable via a level select in the sky. People talk about HD graphics fixing Zelda and how that's what the Wii U Zelda needs most and it can be amazing. I think there are fundamental issues with the series that need fixing. I hope Nintendo get out of this PH/ST/SS cycle of dumbed down Zelda. When in ten years time, you think back to all the Zelda games, it would be pretty sad if when you thought back to this grand origin story, you thought of the control scheme first and foremost, placing that much importance to it. It's a tool to experience the game, nothing more. (all IMO)

I just don't see what tech specs have to do with a great Zelda game. A Link to the Past is considered by a lot of people as the best ever Zelda and that's on tech that's a couple of decades old. Bumping up to HD quality graphics is like slapping on motion controls... it's the icing on the cake, but the core gameplay etc is what really matters underneath. Things like Hyrule field having to be split up into 4 parts because the tech couldn't handle one big one in TP doesn't actually mean or impact anything in the grand scheme of things (IMO). You still rode around exploring a giant field. On the other hand having an overworld split into three non-connected non-traversable regions in Skyward Sword IS an issue that affects the core gameplay. Not to mention takes a huge stab at the traditional Zelda ideals and concept.

I don't think they were. Sure combat was affected and yes that played a big part in the game, but at the end of the day, the storyline, setting, pacing, visuals, difficulty, sidequests, NPCs, longevity, originality etc are what's really important, and should be the main debating points of the game, IMO. 1 on 1 swordplay, great, but when compared to other Zelda games, the above points should outweigh the controls when it comes to discussion. Nintendo seem keen to dumb Zelda down if Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are any indication. Those two and Skyward Sword are like Zelda games with a straightjacket on, particularly the former two, especially when it comes to exploration. I liked Skyward Sword, but it's mostly synonymous with Nintendo's safety-first reasoning when it comes to creating Zelda games, something that's been in place since TP. The creativity and originality seems to have vanished and that's why these new games aren't winning best of the year and are being overshadowed by the competition for the first time ever.

Take motion controls out of the equation, we're comparing the games themselves. I've never understood how a lot of people seem to place so much emphasis and debate on the motion controls. I'm far more interested in the storytelling, gameplay, visuals, soundtrack, originality, longevity etc. The game itself was fairly safe, compared to the Wind Waker and Majora's Mask. Twilight Princess even more safe. There were plenty of reasons why MM was a big risk beyond the 3 day time mechanic. The tone, storyline and emphasis on sidequests to name three. They seemed to take a half arsed approach with Skyward Sword, trying to be different and original, but not really going anywhere near fear enough. The hub world of Skyloft and the three closed off regions were a big mis-step IMO. They dumbed the game down and that's been a problem with Zelda for a few years now. I'd love to see them return to the days of being bold and making games like Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, but sadly can't see it happening any time soon.

Sadly I get the impression Nintendo would never make another Zelda game like this, far too much of a risk. They seem to like playing it as safe as possible these days with their main IPs

The white one is awful value for money compared to black, only there for mums who want the cheap option.

Just played the Sunken Ship, as boring and uninspired as the rest of the game. Yet another rehashed ghost house level, with the same music, with the main feature being ghosts flying in a circular formation, again. Sad how the equivalent version on a console four generations back was more interesting.

I guess it all depends on how games are judged in this top 50. Impact on the industry > quality it seems.

But it's the superior game. WSR everything Wii Sports is and more. If WSR had been packaged with the Wii instead of the original people would be gushing even more. Nostalgia and the intangible quality of having a bigger impact is what got Wii Sports so high on the list IMO.

Wii Sports at 9 but Wii Sports Resort at 24??

Majora's Mask The Wind Waker Super Mario Galaxy Super Mario World Wipeout 2097

Super Mario World had you going up down left and right, most of the levels were multidirectional. It had you flying underneath the flagpole to reach a secret flagpole behind it, or picking up a hidden key, swimming under the rock to a keyhole on the other side. There was that mystery of wondering how the red/green/blue switches would alter every level in every world. You'd spend an entire level on the back of moving platforms. NSMBU in comparison is very narrow and repetitive. Very safe, just as Nintendo seems to like to play it these days.

I just don't understand the praise about level design in this game (assuming we're talking about the gameplay of each level, rather than the look). The majority are just so similar and uninspired. The Painted Swampland is a prime example. Here we have a beautifully DIFFERENT looking Mario level, and what does it actually consist of? Jumping from pipe to pipe, left to right. And that's it. Oh and the pipes will occasionally move when you jump on them. Zzzzzzzzzz. How long did the designer take to come up with that I wonder. The rest are just as lazy, swapping baddies and obstacles in, but the same basic principle. A couple of exceptions apart, all the mid-world castles involve you going from bottom to the top, and hardly any are memorable as a result.

The pixel transition when you go into the scary bit of Soda Jungle is fantastic, not smiled that much since the baby Yoshis sang for the first time. Retro Mario World goodness they should have used it more

An easy and sadly necessary way of putting together all the Zelda games Nintendo made before they started worrying about a timeline.

Oh come on, every level in this game is pretty much identical. They vast majority all play exactly the same way, just obstacles from left to right. At least Mario World had you thinking and showed a bit of originality. These levels are just so boring and just rehashes of the ones we've been getting for years in the other NSMB games. The desert ones in particular are near identical. No imagination in most of them, just window dressing onto the horribly over-used NSMB formula.

Very pleased Galaxy 1 beat Galaxy 2, The top 3 is exactly as I'd have it.

I'm finding the levels in this game really boring, predictable and repetitive. The vast majority play exactly the same way, with different backgrounds, and obstacles. I'm only up to Soda Jungle but so far so bad. There's nowhere near the quality, originality and creativity of Super Mario World or Super Mario 3. Half the levels in World especially played very differently to the last, they all found ways of mixing the gameplay up a bit. This game is just left > right, about 5 or 6 mini obstacle areas to get past, then flagpole. Same old same old. Very disappointing really, especially when you throw in the pathetic re-use of music throughout the game. Sums up just how lazy and dumbed down this series is/has become.

Did anyone else here grow up playing Balloon Fight on the NES? Balloon Breeze in this game makes me smile big time. Amazing nostalgia, especially the music and sound effects.

I won't go to the next world until I've found all the star coins in the previous one, which stops me from rushing through the game I think. But I was having trouble finding a star coin in level 1-2!! A few of them are very tricky. The backgrounds and art style of Layer Cake Desert may be nice but as usual with NSMB the actual gameplay in the desert world is quite boring and samey. Not much character there, unlike in say SMB2/3 and for that matter Mario 64.

It's definitely the hardest of the NSMB games I'd say, I'm only in the third world and I'm finding it tricky.

Nintendo are the masters of controllers, no surprise they've come up with another gem. Another few +'s: + BIG D-Pad, makes such a difference compared to the small one on the Wii remote + Buttons generally feel substantial - As said before, I wish they'd picked a different material